[Python-Dev] Adding test.support.safe_rmpath()
mail at timgolden.me.uk
Thu Feb 14 10:31:42 EST 2019
On 14/02/2019 15:24, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:03 PM Tim Golden <mail at timgolden.me.uk
> <mailto:mail at timgolden.me.uk>> wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 14:56, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:25 PM Eric Snow
> <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com <mailto:ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com
> <mailto:ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 02:47 Ronald Oussoren via Python-Dev
> > <python-dev at python.org <mailto:python-dev at python.org>
> <mailto:python-dev at python.org <mailto:python-dev at python.org>> wrote:
> > I usually use shutil.rmtree for tests that need to create
> > temporary files, and create a temporary directory for those
> > files (that is, use tempfile.mkdtemp in setUp() and use
> > shutil.rmtree in tearDown()). That way I don’t have to adjust
> > house-keeping code when I make changes to test code.
> > Same here.
> > -eric
> > What I generally do is avoid relying on tempfile.mkdtemp() and
> > use TESTFN instead. I think it's cleaner as a pradigm because
> it's an
> > incentive to not pollute the single unit tests with
> > instructions (the whole cleanup logic is always supposed to occur in
> > setUp/tearDown):
> Must chime in here because I've been pushing (variously months & years
> ago) to move *away* from TESTFN because it generates numerous
> intermittent errors on my Windows setup. I've had several goes at
> starting to do that but a combination of my own lack of time plus some
> people's reluctance to go that route altogether has stalled the thing.
> I'm not sure I understand the difference in cleanup/teardown terms
> between using tempfile and using TESTFN. The objections I've seen from
> people (apart, obviously, from test churn) are to do with building up
> testing temp artefacts on a possibly low-sized disk.
> I suppose you mean the intermittent failures are usually due to "file is
> already in use by another process" correct? test.support's unlink(),
Occasionally (and those are usually down to a poorly-handled cleanup).
More commonly it's due to residual share-delete handles on those files,
probably from indexing & virus checkers or TortoiseXXX cache handlers.
Obviously I can (and to some extent do) try to mitigate those issues.
In short: reusing the same filepath over and over for tests which are
run in quick succession doesn't seem like a good idea usually. That's
commonly what TESTFN-based tests do (some do; some don't).
I'm 100% with you on strict clean-up, not leaving testing turds behind,
not over-complicating simple tests with lost of framework. All that. But
-- however it's done -- I'd prefer to move away from the test-global
I'm not at my dev box atm so can't pick out examples but I definitely
have some :) I have no issue with your proposal here: better and simpler
cleanup is A Good Thing. But it won't solve the problem of re-using the
same test filepath again and again.
More information about the Python-Dev